77 comments:

That's been my general opinion, too. I can't believe how emotional people are about this - if you want money to go to PP, why not just donate it to PP? Why get so upset because some other, private organization is not donating to PP?

Also, from what I understand SGK mainly exists to donate money to other organizations - how is that effective or efficient? Makes no sense to me.

what bothers me is they were getting money for something (breast exams) that should be a standard part of the well woman exam. Did they get money from the American Heart Association for checking blood pressures too?

The truth? It's pretty simple. Komen saw the time as ripe to stop giving money to Planned Parenthood (because of the hullabaloo Anga2010 exemplifies). Komen was utterly caught off guard to learn that a substantial part of its support comes from people who aren't in agreement with the point of view Aga2010 exemplifies. Komen is frantic to get back in the good graces of that substantial part of its former support.

Also, (I've been overwhelmed with stuff about this stupid issue lately, so sorry for the double post), my overall opinion to people who want to claim that "It's not about abortion!":

If there were one organization, that does a lot of really great stuff that you think is awesome, but it also gave a tiny portion of money to the KKK, would you support that organization? Bear in mind that the KKK doesn't (well, didn't - let's go back to when they were big) only exist to burn crosses - during it's heyday, it was a huge community organization in many places, helping with schools, emergencies, law enforcement, etc.

I completely stand by my comparison of racism to abortion- they are both reprehensible in a comparable way. If Organization A wanted to give just a little bit of the money to the KKK, and the money that they gave was strictly earmarked for the KKK's non-racially related activities which were non-controversial(say, to help people who lost their homes to natural disasters), I would still find Organization A reprehensible and refuse to support it.

I support a certain amount of "abortion rights". However, what I got out of the broohaha is:

1. SGK was giving money to PP, most of which didn't support Breast Cancer prevention2. they tried to stop3. they changed their mind after the Left beat them up4. Now a bunch of folks who donated to SGK have recognized that if they want to support Breast cancer prevention, SGK may not be the place to give.

I agree with Lyssa; I donate money and time directly to causes I am concerned about. But at the same time, every year, I am approached at work by the United Way to make a contribution.

I understand the purpose of the United Way, but other than the fact that an employer may match funds to United Way, I don't see much of a purpose to it. Much like SGK, I'd rather just do a direct donation to my charities of choice; why do we need middlemen for this?

PP is used to being attacked for it's position, in fact, they go on the offensive when they are attacked in the media. SGK was unprepared for how hard PP would come back at them for their decision. Other organizations that are considering dropping funding for PP need to be prepared, in advance, for the counteroffensive.

The general trend of how charities and nonprofits operate is discouraging. Lots of shuffling, administrative costs, not so obvious and obvious political agendas, job security, etc., issues which tend to make the accomplishment of the stated goal less likely. Lets not even go into out and out lying and corruption.

Planned Parenthood is perhaps the worst at understating what they are really about and using a laudable mantra as a cover.

Are you trying to tell me that Planned Parenthood isn't mostly about sitting down with young married people and discussing various long-term life options like education, housing, planning the number and the timing of children, help with financial planning and real estate considerations? Family? Planning? See, I know what those two words mean and I know what they mean when they're put together. And now you're over here in Oppositeland telling me that everything is opposite.

This was the Front Page story in the Phila Inquirer yesterday and has led the local TV and radio news for 2-3 days now. The local TV news last night called it the Komen Fiasco implying it was horrible or something.

It shows what happens when there is a a mass freakout in the librul ranks.

Chip Ahoy said:"No wait wait wait. Are you trying to tell me that Planned Parenthood isn't mostly about sitting down with young married people and discussing various long-term life options like education, housing, planning the number and the timing of children, help with financial planning and real estate considerations? Family? Planning? See, I know what those two words mean and I know what they mean when they're put together. And now you're over here in Oppositeland telling me that everything is opposite."

This is a prime example of why I read Althouse and its many brilliant commenters!

Maybee- the pink shoes and jerseys etc drives me nuts too and I will be glad to see that hokey schtick retired.

Lastly, my nephew has done the Breast Cancer annual walkathon [the 5k] but he also goes to DC to do the annual Walk for Life. I bet he stops supporting the Komen event.

$141 million on "education" (this is a lot and is very vague; I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of this doubles as publicity for Komen).

$47 million on screening, so the PP grant is a very minor piece. It's really not clear to me whether these were dedicated breast cancer screenings or funding general gyne. exams at sliding-scale clinics.

$20 million for treatment -- a much smaller number than I would have expected. If I had thought about it much, I would have assumed Komen largely provided mammograms and then paid for treatment for uninsured women.

$41 million for administration (a lot, if all they're doing is funnelling grants to other organizations, rather than running programs themselves).

$36 million for fundraising costs.

These numbers are not what I would have expected.

In any case, even before this issue came up, I wouldn't have been inclined to support them as it bugs me that Breast Cancer is singled out as uniquely worth fighting, more than other diseases. (The American Heart Association campaign for women's heart disease also bugs me -- why does women's health matter more? Women are already healthier than men, and my husband is at greater risk of heart disease than I am.)

But their horrid communication and then backing down in the face of PP bullying is disapointing. Why not just say drop the grant when renewal come times and say they want to focus on general clinics rather than ones where general healthcare is a sideline to a larger business?

@ Carole_Herman You see? Hanging out on the right, with all those pro-lifer's ... just had an effect of showing you the majority ain't there.

You could lose business.

Not sure if I read you right -- but you are thinking the pro PP people outnumber the non PP people at SGK's base?

The pro PP are the tantrum throwers.

The non PP are probably a very significant number. (And there is this -- conservatives tend to give a lot more money and time than lefties.) Being unaware of what was going on they gave to a "good cause." Now that the shoe has very publically changed the foot again -- well.

The non PPers don't do the tantrum thing. They walk away with their check books in their bags.

I think SGK by indulging the pro PP people is going to come undone as mentioned elsewhere.

This has guaranteed they have maxed out. They will never be the power house they have been.

Megan McArdle has what appears to be a pretty even-handed evaluation of the Komen decision to defund Planned Parenthood.

I think Drill SGT, at 12:13, pretty much covers things. I know that my wife was stunned to discover that money we've donated in the past is going anyplace other than to cancer research, providing mammograms to impoverished women, or very modest overhead and administrative costs. We are rethinking support to Komen, now that they've caved to the abortion-should-be-mandatory crowd.

Key sentence: "And to be fair, I do think that they should offer give back any money they raised over the last two days, since that was mostly coming from pro-lifers who were voicing support for the organization's decision not to fund Planned Parenthood."

McArdle wonders whether Komen has so "damaged their brand" that they will raise a lot less money from here out. Good question. The thing about caving to lefties is that lefties don't donate much to charities. Placating lefties doesn't seem like a winning strategy in the long run.

In all my career, I have never associated Planned Parenthood with mammograms. I have had patients who get their paps there because they were more affordable, but none of them ever got their mammograms there. Does anyone know if they actually pay for women's mammograms or offer that? I suspect their patient demographics trends to a much younger age that would not make mammograms a sustainable business, even for a charity. You don't need funding to do breast exams, by the way. They take about three minutes at the most and should be a part of the gyn exam - not paid for with extra money from another charity.

Didn't I read somewhere that the amount of the grants to PP from Komen was only around $500k? And doesn't PP have a budget of something over $1b?

It seems to me they either underestimated the blowback or they had some kind of power struggle going on in their boardroom. The whole thing strikes me as a PR nightmare, because now they have people that feel passionately on both sides angry with them. I never knew before this that they had anything to do with abortions (PP if you prefer).

Good point by someone there about why would PP -- which is supposed to be FOR WOMEN -- go out of their way publically to damage SGK.

The upside of this is people are now asking what those services were. Every dollar given that pays for something at PP means a dollar can be applied to services which many people would not want to fund.

When I was shopping for affordable mammogram a few years ago no one mentioned PP to me -- because they do not offer mammograms. So as sydney mentioned above -- what was the money to PP for?

As per usual, the left punishes those who deviate from their narrow "openmindedness" and bizarro "diversity."

The mistake SGK made was to ever give money to a polarizing organization like PP. Simply discontinuing funding PP caused overly sensitive pro-choice folks to go ballistic. Caving to PP demands ensures pro-life folks will see SGK as tainted.

I worked for a big company that did a lot of cross promotion work with SGK. That company created pink versions of their products and gave a portion of proceeds to SGK. Now that SGK is connected to PP, and it really doesn't matter whether SGK is seen as pro- or anti-PP, I can't imagine my old employer having anything more to do with SGK.

Moral of the story: If you are a neutral charity, do not go anywhere near a controversial one like Planned Parenthood.

I'm sure the PP folks are satisfied with their "victory," but they have forever damaged SGK, and have only marginally helped themselves.

Planned "Parenthood" is not in the breast cancer detection business. They are not in the fertility or parenthood business. They are not in the business of helping women.

They are in the abortion business, the anti-parenthood business, the anti-woman business, with distribution of contraceptives and abortifacients on the side, together with also being in the business of extremist politics.

Any money that goes to them goes to pay abortionists and related personnel to commit abortions, as well as going in the pockets of PP executives and lobbyists and lawyers.

The internet has grown into a toddler, wreaking havoc with its new found growth. It started with Arab Spring, SOPA and PIPA, and now this. What we are seeing is mob rule, or is it democracy hard at work? The answer is not known yet. That comes after the toddler stage when social norms and checks evolve.

This little stat is trotted out by social conservatives with regard to this dustup, but it's pretty meaningless. The Komen/PP split lasted all of two or three days, so it's not a meaningful period for fundraising comparisons. Also, left unstated is the point of comparison - doubled over the previous two or three days, doubled over the same two or three day period in 2011? In any case, it's a short period of time that's not really significant. And nice Nazi reference there, chief. You show your great intellect with those.

Big Mike says: Placating lefties doesn't seem like a winning strategy in the long run.

I suspect Komen just figured out that the affluent, educated upper middle class and upper class women that support Planned Parenthood are a huge part of their donor base as well, so they realized placating them is a winning strategy or at the very least, alienating them is a losing one. I realize you're probably unfamiliar with that demographic, but feel free to thank me for that little lesson.

"Planned "Parenthood" is not in the breast cancer detection business. They are not in the fertility or parenthood business. They are not in the business of helping women.

They are in the abortion business..."

This, sadly, is true. I used to think that Planned Parenthood was primarily in the business of contraception and women's health services, such as affordable paps and birth control pills. However, throughout the George W. Bush years I received frequent mailings from Planned Parenthood asking me for donations to rid our nation of the nefarious Bush. I do not recall George W. Bush ever saying anything against contraception or pap smears. He did, however, take an anti-abortion stand.

Here's the thing - will people suddenly not care anymore about funding a cure for breast cancer so they can get REVENGE for abortionists? I'm pro-choice, but I have no love for the proud baby murderers. At least have some fucking shame about what you're doing.

I suspect Komen just figured out that the affluent, educated upper middle class and upper class women that support Planned Parenthood are a huge part of their donor base as well, so they realized placating them is a winning strategy or at the very least, alienating them is a losing one.

Three decades of service to women fighting breast cancer, and having raised and distributed hundreds of millions of dollars and nearly $2 billion towards that goal, means absolutely nothing to those people.

Well, Jay, there's only one problem with your analogy. And, that is that the Komen group just saw a big drop in their donations.

Yes, they reversed this policy. So what? Pink ribbons and all, their donations aren't going to be coming back.

It's a social conservative issue. (This one even blew out Mitt's win from the front pages.) And, IF there's any lessons to be learned? It's the political one ... about the agenda ... that doesn't sell tickets.

I suspect Komen just figured out that the affluent, educated upper middle class and upper class women that support Planned Parenthood are a huge part of their donor base as well, so they realized placating them is a winning strategy or at the very least, alienating them is a losing one. I realize you're probably unfamiliar with that demographic, but feel free to thank me for that little lesson.

@somefeller, you missed -- or mistakenly dismissed -- what I wrote just before that. Frankly, every study I've ever read says the same thing, that the "affluent, educated upper middle class and upper class" demographic is the least likely to donate generously to charities. So I think that placating people who aren't likely to donate to you is probably the farthest thing from a winning strategy that there is.

Susan Komen foundation is a private organization. They can donate to whoever they want whenever they want without being intimidated by politics. I frankly don't like the Susan Komen foundation. I find it to be an organization that is in it for not really 'finding' a cure, but to exist for it's own sake and self-gratification (the pat on the back that says, "aw, you are such a noble person") and to capture as much money off of peoples grief as possible. Either way, seeing PP cry like a stuck pig was interesting. Also, seeing the foundation do a 180 only tells me that Nancy Pelosi and probably several other politicians made phone calls to Komen and forced them into this reversal, which if true, i would find wholly repugnant.

I suspect Komen just figured out that the affluent, educated upper middle class and upper class women that support Planned Parenthood are a huge part of their donor base as well, so they realized placating them is a winning strategy or at the very least, alienating them is a losing one.

Yep. Gotta keep the duskier minorities from reproducin'. There's just too damn many of hangin out in the malls as there is.

I realize you're probably unfamiliar with that demographic, but feel free to thank me for that little lesson.

Da african american hoochies are three times more likely to abort theys younguns. Yep they will.

If you are in the business of raising money to fight a deadly disease, and if you have any measure of PR savvy you will not give out some of those funds to someone who a huge segment of the American population associates intimately with premature death. I don't care if that someone is Planned Parenthood, the Hemlock Society, R. J. Reynolds, Phillip Morris, Bill Ayers, Janet Reno, Henry "Let Saigon Be Bygone" Kissinger, or the estate of Ted Kennedy.

1) If an organization doesn’t directly provide the services that you want to support but instead gives grants, cut out the middle man and donate directly to the service provider. They’ll be happy to take your money and you’ll get more bang for your buck.

2) Any organization that is about “raising awareness” for something that the general public is already aware of is really out to “raise awareness” about their organization.